If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Visual.ly)   How lobbyists run Washington DC. Translation: we're screwed, and will continue to be screwed for a long, long time   (visual.ly) divider line 359
    More: Scary, Washington DC, lobbyists  
•       •       •

13408 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2012 at 10:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-06 04:01:13 PM

wedun: Perhaps your efforts would be better spent enlisting the help of like-minded individuals in your community. Working with a political party to find a new candidate who represents your views. Turning out the vote to get your candidate elected.


Who are already owned by Lobbyists. Get a clue dude. Big Business owns both sides of the aisle and the independents (or even party members that stand against the system) are marginalized.

Look what happened to Buddy Roemer in this GOP primary run. He campaigned on a platform of of getting lobbyists out of Washington and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and guess what? He never saw the inside of even a single televised debate. Most people are not even aware he exists. It says a lot when the only person to come close to cracking the two party system in a presidential run was a billionaire in his own right. If you see a campaign ad on TV, that candidate has already been bought. The system is fundamentally broken and the power of the American voter is nil.
 
2012-03-06 04:21:28 PM

KiplingKat872: We have an entrenched system in which lobbyists own the representatives and candidates of BOTH parties (at every level (city, state, and federal). And candidates who want to buck that system, like Buddy Roemer, are literary ignored off the political map and have not a chance in hell of being elected while the participating voters are distracted with political theatre of the church trying to invade the state.


Buddy Roemer sounds like a made up name. Get serious, buddy. Vote MAX POWER
 
2012-03-06 04:35:09 PM

KiplingKat872: Thunderpipes: Unions are the largest group of lobbyists and spend the most money.

But you knew that and are okay with it, because 95% of them support Democrats.

Dumbass hippies.

Huh, here is a list of the companies and organization that have spent the most money since 1998...and not one single workers union on it. (new window)

I do see the AARP has donated a hell of a lot tho'.


Lobbyists do things other than give politicians money.

Heck, they usually don't give them money directly.

Lobbyists sit down, have a chat, and state their position on bills pending before Congress. In theory, that's their only job.

Now, while corporate lobbyists might pay for a golfing trip to do this (and provide the hookers and booze while there), that's not all they do. The guy from the ACLU (or NRA, or AIPAC, or AARP, or Greenpeace) who sits with the Congressman in his office and discusses the issue is also a lobbyist.
 
2012-03-06 04:39:53 PM
Just a few thoughts.

1. lobbyists don't just get up in the morning and decide to advocate for oil/pharma/guns or AARP for that matter. They are the professional educators/communicators/petitioners that are hired by the industry, company or interest group. You are shooting the messenger. Be upset with Exxon, Koch or Acorn for having interests.
2. Money only allows politicians to drown out negative reputations or rehabilitate their image. It doesn't get them votes. That is why they do listen to well articulated messages from their constituents - because each of those messages represents voters that are engaged. They don't however listen to derp (well, some pander to it) and it is hard to know what a constituent wants if there isn't an "ask". So make sure your letter is clear and has an actionable objective that is clearly identified,
3. DC or your state capitol is less of a club than some of you think. Everyone has their own agenda and interests. Lobbyists help the government affairs departments of businesses and nonprofits navigate the maze of competing interests. Donations to politicians just lets them be at the table. It doesn't guarantee any success. It may be a cess pool, but its more like the mean girl table in high school than a smoke filled backroom where everyone is helping each other out.
4. Term limits results in a loss of institutional knowledge, puts power into the hands of unelected staffers/lobbyists (who are often going back and forth through a revolving door) and can often result in more partisan legislature. These term limited politicians see politics as a team sport rather than an adverserial process that inevitably includes compromise.

/worked in Albany
/now work for industry overseeing lobbyists
 
2012-03-06 04:42:25 PM

KiplingKat872: wedun: this is an example of the terrible ignorance that he was talking about. You're naive enough to think that voting once every couple years is sufficient to insure that your legislator works in your interest, and it's funny.

I hope you are being sarcastic. Otherwise: What's funny is that you have not read the rest of my posts in this thread before making assumptions about my political activism. I have marched in protests, I have written letters, I have made phone calls, I even had a political blog for two years.

I wrote four letters over NDAA 2012: Of the two staffers who felt obligated to reply, all I got was the farking party-line about "protecting American freedoms" and how it would not affect American citizens, swear to god, really, they would never think of using it on Americans (which is a load of crap as it most certainly does leave the door open for it to be used on Americans), and the president, whom was one of my addressees, signed off on it.

Legislators no longer work in the people's interest no matter what they do. I they do not have a boatload of cash, they do not have a political voice.


In this case, there was absolutely no corporate money involved, nor any corporate lobbying. It's not like Wal*Mart has a big "kill American citzens who are accused of terrorism" contract. The legislators involved sincerely believe that having that power helps keep America safe.
 
2012-03-06 04:47:29 PM

KiplingKat872: Look at that, unions don't even make the top twenty. (new window)


Lobbying is different than political contributions anyways. Lobbying is a guy talking about a bill to a Congressman.
 
2012-03-06 04:54:13 PM

Geotpf: KiplingKat872: Look at that, unions don't even make the top twenty. (new window)

Lobbying is different than political contributions anyways. Lobbying is a guy talking about a bill to a Congressman.


If a Representative or Senator has a choice between meeting with any of hundreds of Americans who have donated no money to their election campaign and one American who has donated some money to their campaign, there is absolutely no question who they are going to talk to. If a Representative or Senator has a choice between meeting with any of hundreds of Americans who has donated a buck to their election campaign and an American who has donated hundreds or thousands of dollars to their election campaign, there is absolutely no question who they are going to talk to. You can't separate lobbying from donations.
 
2012-03-06 04:58:03 PM

Geotpf: KiplingKat872: Look at that, unions don't even make the top twenty. (new window)

Lobbying is different than political contributions anyways. Lobbying is a guy talking about a bill to a Congressman.


Accept they can get an appointment to actually sit down with the legislator and I will only get a third rate staffer. And even *if* I got to talk to tje legislator I will be glad handed out of the office in ten minutes and then promptly forgotten.

Comparing the results and efforts of an individual voter with a professional lobbyist are disingenious at best.
 
2012-03-06 05:09:50 PM

htotheova: Just a few thoughts.

1. lobbyists don't just get up in the morning and decide to advocate for oil/pharma/guns or AARP for that matter. They are the professional educators/communicators/petitioners that are hired by the industry, company or interest group. You are shooting the messenger. Be upset with Exxon, Koch or Acorn for having interests.
2. Money only allows politicians to drown out negative reputations or rehabilitate their image. It doesn't get them votes. That is why they do listen to well articulated messages from their constituents - because each of those messages represents voters that are engaged. They don't however listen to derp (well, some pander to it) and it is hard to know what a constituent wants if there isn't an "ask". So make sure your letter is clear and has an actionable objective that is clearly identified,
3. DC or your state capitol is less of a club than some of you think. Everyone has their own agenda and interests. Lobbyists help the government affairs departments of businesses and nonprofits navigate the maze of competing interests. Donations to politicians just lets them be at the table. It doesn't guarantee any success. It may be a cess pool, but its more like the mean girl table in high school than a smoke filled backroom where everyone is helping each other out.
4. Term limits results in a loss of institutional knowledge, puts power into the hands of unelected staffers/lobbyists (who are often going back and forth through a revolving door) and can often result in more partisan legislature. These term limited politicians see politics as a team sport rather than an adverserial process that inevitably includes compromise.

/worked in Albany
/now work for industry overseeing lobbyists


!. Shoot enough and they run out of messengers. Tried and true tactic.

2. Total BS. Money is the only voice in the room.

3. Divided and Conquered, they are. Fix it.

4. Term limits are obviated by a succesive replacement by draft.

Before you can imagine a sustainable, workable, system, you must cut down the deadwood to see the view.
Solve the problem, do not just negotiate incrementally. That is what got us here.
 
2012-03-06 05:24:51 PM

htotheova: 1. lobbyists don't just get up in the morning and decide to advocate for oil/pharma/guns or AARP for that matter. They are the professional educators/communicators/petitioners that are hired by the industry, company or interest group. You are shooting the messenger. Be upset with Exxon, Koch or Acorn for having interests.


The system is the problem. ALL of it.

2. Money only allows politicians to drown out negative reputations or rehabilitate their image. It doesn't get them votes. That is why they do listen to well articulated messages from their constituents - because each of those messages represents voters that are engaged. They don't however listen to derp (well, some pander to it) and it is hard to know what a constituent wants if there isn't an "ask". So make sure your letter is clear and has an actionable objective that is clearly identified,

B.S. Money buys exposure which allows them to control the narrative of a campaign and gets them votes, "donations" swapped between representatives pet charities and such buys favors between lobbyists and lawmakers and lawmakers themselves.

My letters are very specific addressing specific bills, nor do I imagine I am the only one who writes to my Congressmen this way. As mentioned above, money is the only voice in the room.

3. DC or your state capitol is less of a club than some of you think. Everyone has their own agenda and interests. Lobbyists help the government affairs departments of businesses and nonprofits navigate the maze of competing interests. Donations to politicians just lets them be at the table. It doesn't guarantee any success. It may be a cess pool, but its more like the mean girl table in high school than a smoke filled backroom where everyone is helping each other out.

Waffling B.S. It guarantees them far more success than a group of voters without a large check would have, ergo the exclusionary nature of backroom dealings, which has been proven over and over and over again. See: The career of Jack Abrhamoff and all those like him.
 
2012-03-06 05:46:36 PM
Been a busy day I see:

KiplingKat872: jda007: All the anti-lobbyist WHARRGARBL is entertaining at best, scary due to the ignorance of it all at worst.

Nothing personal, but the work you do is pretty much paramount to evil, taking power away from the American voter to put it in the hands of big business.


snocone: jda007: Mugato: jda007: I'm a lobbyist

You need an attitude adjustment.
You are not going to enjoy it.


KiplingKat872: jda007: Mugato: jda007: I'm a lobbyist

You stole our government.

There is no way around that, you guys have WAY more power in money than any group of American voters. I'm sure you all play the victims amongst yourselves to rationalize what you do, but honestly? Out here in the real world? Fark you.

Eat shiat and DIAF.

We're know what you have done and we're more than slightly pissed.


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Fark.com!

The language and diction in the comments against me indicate that there are many well-educated and enlightened individuals haunting the forums of Fark. The above are perfect examples of scary ignorance.

You have *no* idea what I do with the exception of admitting that I hold the title "lobbyist." Although I listed a couple of my client industries, what you do not know is that one of my major projects this year has been protecting items in the budget for Medicaid funding to a major hospital. Which, you know, will help ensure quality health care to those that can least afford it. Clearly I am the Dark Lord of Special Interest and deserve an attitude adjustment before I DIAF in my evil mountaintop lair.

htotheova: Just a few thoughts.

1. lobbyists don't just get up in the morning and decide to advocate for oil/pharma/guns or AARP for that matter. They are the professional educators/communicators/petitioners that are hired by the industry, company or interest group. You are shooting the messenger. Be upset with Exxon, Koch or Acorn for having interests.
2. Money only allows politicians to drown out negative reputations or rehabilitate their image. It doesn't get them votes. That is why they do listen to well articulated messages from their constituents - because each of those messages represents voters that are engaged. They don't however listen to derp (well, some pander to it) and it is hard to know what a constituent wants if there isn't an "ask". So make sure your letter is clear and has an actionable objective that is clearly identified,
3. DC or your state capitol is less of a club than some of you think. Everyone has their own agenda and interests. Lobbyists help the government affairs departments of businesses and nonprofits navigate the maze of competing interests. Donations to politicians just lets them be at the table. It doesn't guarantee any success. It may be a cess pool, but its more like the mean girl table in high school than a smoke filled backroom where everyone is helping each other out.
4. Term limits results in a loss of institutional knowledge, puts power into the hands of unelected staffers/lobbyists (who are often going back and forth through a revolving door) and can often result in more partisan legislature. These term limited politicians see politics as a team sport rather than an adverserial process that inevitably includes compromise.



On the other hand, htotheova, you must be new here since you are completely WHARRGARBL free. Thank you for your post - I agree with your description wholeheartedly. Heck, I might even borrow this explanation from you sometime.

Off to go sit on my throne of skulls while I make my politician puppets dance and drink the tears of infinite sadness to sustain my unholy life.
 
2012-03-06 05:52:37 PM

jda007: The language and diction in the comments against me indicate that there are many well-educated and enlightened individuals haunting the forums of Fark. The above are perfect examples of scary ignorance.

You have *no* idea what I do with the exception of admitting that I hold the title "lobbyist." Although I listed a couple of my client industries, what you do not know is that one of my major projects this year has been protecting items in the budget for Medicaid funding to a major hospital. Which, you know, will help ensure quality health care to those that can least afford it. Clearly I am the Dark Lord of Special Interest and deserve an attitude adjustment before I DIAF in my evil mountaintop lair.



And you have said nothing to counter any of my other arguments, including the ones I made against you before I went here, so yeah you go sit on the pile of B.S. that makes you feel better about what you do.
 
2012-03-06 05:55:12 PM
jda007:

As someone has already said on here, just because lobbyists do nice thing sometimes, that does not make the system right. You take power from American voters and put it in the hands of businesses.

That is not the way a republic (and certainly not a democracy) is supposed to work.
 
2012-03-06 06:02:23 PM
What arguments? You just ranted and raved about how we are all evil. All sorts of points were made that lobbying isn't the system that you think it is.

Then I tell you I lobby for Medicaid funding and this is your response?

1/10. Weak.
 
2012-03-06 06:05:52 PM
An outsider thinking the system is flawed does nothing to change the system. Advocating for murder and calling people all lobbyists evil is just asinine.

If you really want to fix the system, learn it, work it, and try to fix it from the inside. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that the system has very good aspects.
 
2012-03-06 06:16:49 PM
1.) invent bullet-proof armor suit with masking technology(think Predator)
2.) sneak up on congress(you're invisible, how hard could it be?)
3.) declare martial law
4.) kill lobbyists and corrupt politicians
5.) put the military in charge
6.) sneak away unidentified(like the internets)
7.) start government over
8.) service guarantees citizenship.

/except for the killing, I'm not kidding
//marines get the executive branch, navy the judicial, army gets the legislative
///old politicians rounded up and sent to re-education camps and turned into walmart greeters
////lobbyists get turned into soylent green
 
2012-03-06 06:18:33 PM
This is the 21st century. Hi-speed internet available in most cities of a certain size.
Companies do video conferencing all the time.

Tell me again why we have to send people to a special city basically for meetings?
I know. It makes it easier for the lobbyists to "contribute" to the campaign coffers.

Keep them in their districts so that they are actually available to the people that they allegedly represent.

/wish voting "None of the Above" was a viable option.
 
2012-03-06 06:22:52 PM

jda007: What arguments? You just ranted and raved about how we are all evil. All sorts of points were made that lobbying isn't the system that you think it is.

Then I tell you I lobby for Medicaid funding and this is your response?

1/10. Weak.


Yeah, sure. Ignore everything I said before that, as well as everything else I have said on this thread. Typical neoconservative.

Yes, that is my repsonse. The system is broke and you are helping to keep it so by taking power from the hands of voter. Just because you do a nice thing occasionally (while working for an industry that pushed through and exploited a law that guaranteed them a captive client base), that does not make the system right.

jda007: An outsider thinking the system is flawed does nothing to change the system.


Yeah, thanks for showing your crap attitude.

I'm not supposed to be an "outsider." No voter is supposed to be an "outsider" to their own political system, you insular jerk.

As I have stated three farking times on this thread, I have written letters, voted, promoted candidates, had a political blog for two years, protested in marches, and you know what effect it has had on the system?

Nothing.

Why?

Because I'm broke. I can't afford to sling around the cash to get their attention in a system in which your employers and those like them have bought both sides of the aisle and no other candidate can afford to get enough exposure to challenge either of the major parties.

How are we supposed to "change it from the inside" when you and your paid for representatives have locked everything up? How many representatives are really going to vote for anything that takes cash from them, their pet charities, and their campaign war-chests? Really?

Citizen United vs. the FCC now mean that campaign finance reform has to be a constitutional amendment. How far is that really going to fly in the system as it stands?

Sling all the b.s. you want, people know how it works. They know the power they ave lost to you and your employers.

And they are pissed off.
 
2012-03-06 06:26:59 PM
jda007:

For the fourth or fifth time in this thread: I point to Buddy Roemer, who campaigned for the GOP primary on a "remove legalized corruption from Washington" platform and never saw the inside of a single GOP debate, let alone got the funds to get the exposure so that enough people even knew he was there to vote for him.

So how are people supposed to "change things from the inside" when the inside won't have anything to do with anything that changes it, and makes every effort it can to ensure that nothing will?
 
2012-03-06 06:30:03 PM

jda007: An outsider thinking the system is flawed does nothing to change the system. Advocating for murder and calling people all lobbyists evil is just asinine.

If you really want to fix the system, learn it, work it, and try to fix it from the inside. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that the system has very good aspects.


odd, you are advocating that your clients are helping the medicaid issue, yet they are trying to get something to be paid for by medicaid which is not currently covered. While for the few who actually need these services paid for, or item paid for by medicaid, much like the scooter-chairs we all see moving around; they were once in the same boat; they were not covered except in extreme cases. Now you can call a number, give your ss# and age,. answer some questions, and you have a new chair. Paid for by john q taxpayer. Whether you need it of not. This morning, I saw no less than 8 of those damn chairs motoring around, occupied by people who were grossly overweight. While I have no problem with someone who has lost a leg or appendage having a chair, if you've let yourself go that far, deal with it. We don't want to reward them for poor choices, and yet that is what happened, and the scooter industry lobbied congress and got the damn things approved for under medicaid.
Get your damn money out of my congress.

/when did being the best candidate come distant second to having the deepest pockets?
 
2012-03-06 06:32:21 PM
The system is self-perpetuating and self-protecting. The American voter no longer has any say, and it is almost impossible for us to take power back through the system, especially when the media keeps the nation divided and conquered with church vs state political theatre while big business treats this nation and it's people as nothing more then a resource to be exploited.

Unless there is a near miraculous event, more and more people will have less and less to loose and this will come to violence.
 
2012-03-06 06:45:55 PM

Trance354: jda007: An outsider thinking the system is flawed does nothing to change the system. Advocating for murder and calling people all lobbyists evil is just asinine.

If you really want to fix the system, learn it, work it, and try to fix it from the inside. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that the system has very good aspects.

odd, you are advocating that your clients are helping the medicaid issue, yet they are trying to get something to be paid for by medicaid which is not currently covered. While for the few who actually need these services paid for, or item paid for by medicaid, much like the scooter-chairs we all see moving around; they were once in the same boat; they were not covered except in extreme cases. Now you can call a number, give your ss# and age,. answer some questions, and you have a new chair. Paid for by john q taxpayer. Whether you need it of not. This morning, I saw no less than 8 of those damn chairs motoring around, occupied by people who were grossly overweight. While I have no problem with someone who has lost a leg or appendage having a chair, if you've let yourself go that far, deal with it. We don't want to reward them for poor choices, and yet that is what happened, and the scooter industry lobbied congress and got the damn things approved for under medicaid.
Get your damn money out of my congress.

/when did being the best candidate come distant second to having the deepest pockets?


LOL, scooters, wut?

No, I tried to ensure Medicaid funding would not be cut from the budget for a hospital.

KiplingKat good for you for wanting to fix things. I'm glad you've toned down the vitriol responses a bit, name calling aside. In light of that, let me give you my honest thoughts from working in politics:

Writing letters, promoting candidates, having a political blog, and protesting in marches does very little to change things. All of this demonstrates, however, that you are clearly very passionate - good. If you want to really make a difference is to throw your hat in the ring and run for office.

If you ever do run for office, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
 
2012-03-06 06:48:35 PM

jda007: Writing letters, promoting candidates, having a political blog, and protesting in marches does very little to change things. All of this demonstrates, however, that you are clearly very passionate - good. If you want to really make a difference is to throw your hat in the ring and run for office.

If you ever do run for office, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.


Fark you. I have seen what happened to people who run for office on a platform trying to change the lobbying system and end the influence of big business in government. It just happened to a former governor of Louisiana. You might as well advised me to try to fly by jumping off the roof.
 
2012-03-06 06:53:42 PM

KiplingKat872:

Fark you. I have seen what happened to people who run for office on a platform trying to change the lobbying system and end the influence of big business in government. It just happened to a former governor of Louisiana. You might as well advised me to try to fly by jumping off the roof.


Wow, you're kindof a prick aren't you?

I'm not farking with you - I'm serious, run for office. Don't make lobbying reform your only platform but make it part of your overall platform and incorporate whatever else you believe. Be it local office, state office, or federal office, you can help make things better. That the beauty of a republican form of government.

Or just keep yelling at clouds. Whatever you think will work.
 
2012-03-06 06:54:04 PM
@JDA007 I'm not new, I've been reading fark politics since 2005, I just don't post often. I also know better than to expect rationale discourse here, although there are some very educated farmers who often raise interesting perspectives on all sorts of issues and since I try to keep an open mind sometimes sway me.

That said, while this could be an opportunity for some who are interested in campaign finance reform, honest services fraud, corruption, etc to ask pointed questions about what we observe in our day to day jobs, it will probably devolve into a shoot the messenger thread. Oh wait, it already did.

@everyone I'd actually prefer to take money out of politics so that I could focus more on making the case (yeah I'm also a lawyer) for my company than have to give money at fundraiser just to be able to get meetings. It wold be nice to be able to just petition government for redress of grievances.
 
2012-03-06 06:59:02 PM

jda007: I'm not farking with you - I'm serious, run for office. Don't make lobbying reform your only platform but make it part of your overall platform and incorporate whatever else you believe. Be it local office, state office, or federal office, you can help make things better. That the beauty of a republican form of government.


That you and your bosses took away from us!

All the news stories about corruption, the articles like this one, the documentaries, the websites tracking lobbying funds, and you think people still don't know how how the political landscape in this country is shaped?

Fark you and your condensing lies arsehole. Campaigns come down to one thing and one thing only: MONEY, and very few businesses or wealthy people are going to donate to a candidate who has ideas of threatening the amount of power they have over the government.

The prick is you for participating in and perpetuating in a system that takes power away from the American voter and then lying/rationalizing to yourself about what you are doing.
 
2012-03-06 06:59:22 PM
htotheova:

I'm sorry, I just guessed by your recent signup date and your rational arguments. I see the usual fark meme of "you must be new here" periodically whenever someone appears especially cogent.

Also, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Glad to see there are a few other lawyer/lobbyists on fark.
 
2012-03-06 07:03:24 PM
Ok, have it your way.

images2.fanpop.com
 
2012-03-06 07:05:42 PM

Trance354: 1.) invent bullet-proof armor suit with masking technology(think Predator)
2.) sneak up on congress(you're invisible, how hard could it be?)
3.) declare martial law
4.) kill lobbyists and corrupt politicians
5.) put the military in charge
6.) sneak away unidentified(like the internets)
7.) start government over
8.) service guarantees citizenship.

/except for the killing, I'm not kidding
//marines get the executive branch, navy the judicial, army gets the legislative
///old politicians rounded up and sent to re-education camps and turned into walmart greeters
////lobbyists get turned into soylent green


So, you would remove our republic and replace it with a military dictatorship, then liquidate their vendors (you don't think the defense industry doesn't lobby do you?). I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
 
2012-03-06 07:07:13 PM

htotheova: That said, while this could be an opportunity for some who are interested in campaign finance reform, honest services fraud, corruption, etc to ask pointed questions about what we observe in our day to day jobs, it will probably devolve into a shoot the messenger thread. Oh wait, it already did.


What are we supposed to ask that he hasn't rationalized about already?

All he has tried to do is paint a picture, of "Really, lobbyists aren't that bad, even though I do work for an industry that pushed though legislation that mandated having car insurance and then jacked up the prices on their new captive client base, and am writing legislation for lawmakers."

What has he said that refutes anything this article?

He thinks everyone has power because he does, because he sits next to the river of money and gets to pull on the puppet strings.

We don't.

What else do we need to know other than the system is broken, and without literally hundreds of millions of dollars to compete with the oil and finance lobbies, we haven't a chance in hell of changing anything from within the system.

Like I said, it is telling that the only person that has come lose to cracking the two party system (at least at the presidential level) in the last three decades was a billionaire is his own right.
 
2012-03-06 07:09:32 PM
I just forgot my password and couldn't remember what email account I used when I got my old account in 2006 or so.

So I saw you get called a neo conservative prick. Is this a case of two guys with different political views but the same observations on how the system works? Or was that just good old fashioned fark name calling.
 
2012-03-06 07:11:11 PM

jda007: Ok, have it your way.

[images2.fanpop.com image 265x199]


More like: You are the kind of person the phrase, "first against the wall when the revolution came" was made for.

This nation has no cultural memory of an uprising by the poor like France does, Russia.

Unless something near miraculous happens, 50 years from now, it will.
 
2012-03-06 07:12:54 PM
htotheova:

Probably just good old fashioned name calling.

Ironically, I never said I represented the auto insurance industry. I just pointed out a topical problem.
 
2012-03-06 07:14:25 PM

htotheova: I just forgot my password and couldn't remember what email account I used when I got my old account in 2006 or so.

So I saw you get called a neo conservative prick. Is this a case of two guys with different political views but the same observations on how the system works? Or was that just good old fashioned fark name calling.


One condescending jerk who rationalizes being involved in a system that takes power from the American voter by thinking that because he has power, everyone does, and another poster who isn't afraid to call him on his B.S..
 
2012-03-06 07:23:43 PM

jda007: htotheova:

Probably just good old fashioned name calling.

Ironically, I never said I represented the auto insurance industry. I just pointed out a topical problem.


True, you did not.

But nothing you have said disproves any of my arguments about the amount of influence big business, through lobbyists wields in this nation's government and how legally entrenched it is. How is it next to impossible for someone from outside that system to be elected.

No, you just turned to a very condescending suggestion I run for office. The former governor of Louinsana can't even get into a GOP primary debate while running on a platform that includes lobbying reform. You think Jane blow is going to?

Mr. Smith left Washington a long time ago my friend. Trying to tell us otherwise it like trying to tell a teenager the Easter Bunny is real.
 
2012-03-06 07:37:16 PM

htotheova: I just forgot my password and couldn't remember what email account I used when I got my old account in 2006 or so.

So I saw you get called a neo conservative prick. Is this a case of two guys with different political views but the same observations on how the system works? Or was that just good old fashioned fark name calling.


I was probably unclear. I was really just asking if jda007 was actually conservative (as ascertained through previous posts) since I am moderate/liberal. If jda007 is in fact conservative then it is interesting that two people with divergent political views have similar takes on the interplay among politicians, lobbyists, the interests they represent and the voters.

I'll discuss issues of reform (because you have to have a clear view of the status quo and where the problems are to suggest changes) but I'm not going to get involved in any arguments tonight.
 
2012-03-06 07:55:29 PM

htotheova: (because you have to have a clear view of the status quo and where the problems are to suggest changes)


You mean like the the fact that campaigns cost too much for a level playing field and Citizen's United vs. the FCC ruling and PAC's make sure it never will be, lobbyists writing legitimation, funds donated to pet charities, the fact that often only lobbyists get access to lawmakers, lawmakers who do not even read the legislation they vote on but instead rely lobbyists tell them what it is about (thereby putting their own slant on it, if not outright misrepresenting it), the lobbying revolving door that let people who were staffers and even lawmaker themselves become lobbyists and back again (we currently have one trying to get the GOP nomination), the fact that non profit lobbies simply can't compete with big business so many issue of public interest are simply left to rot, that the financial industry lobbyists pushing for deregulation is a large part of the caused the financial crash?

Stuff like that?

Even lobbyists themselves have admitted this is influence pedaling that empowers the wealthy and disenfranchises the rest of us.
 
2012-03-06 07:57:54 PM
I was not being condescending. I meant what I said. This is one of the huge problems with reading text on the internet. Elected officials are the ones making the decisions.

But... it's been a long day and I forget my 'arguing on the internet' guidelines.

And yeah, I am conservative. I think a lot of folks on our side of the aisle would agree there is too much money in politics. I think Citizens is a poor decision and the less money in the system the better.
 
2012-03-06 08:03:08 PM
htotheova:

The worst part of it all is that it is legally entrenched now.

Candidates to trying to reform it have funds and airtime denied to them while the opposing side is practically smothered in money and exposure. Legislation is blocked by influence or loopholes around it are found and set in legal stone.

The only way to limit campaign finance by big business now is a Constitutional amendment. How far is that really going to get in the current system where 95 % of congress is in the pocket of various lobbyists? I mean, even if they are lobbyists who are completely opposed on key issues, they will come together, rally all their pet legislators, to protect their power.
 
2012-03-06 08:05:41 PM

jda007: Elected officials are the ones making the decisions.


No one can get elected without large campaign donations. Those large campaigns donations are going to come from businesses and the wealthy that want their interests protected. They are not going to donate to someone who's goal is to limit the power they have over the government.

They have power, and they are not going to give it up easily.
 
2012-03-06 08:13:08 PM
jda007:

You have to understand people are waking up to how much power they have lost to the system you participate in.

They are mad. Really mad.

And if the system continues to push them in the economic direction it has been, it's going to get very, very ugly.

Seriously dude, I would give myself another five years to make my money and get the hell out of that line of work because you guys do have a target painted on you for public rage.
 
2012-03-06 08:48:13 PM

KiplingKat872: htotheova: (because you have to have a clear view of the status quo and where the problems are to suggest changes)

You mean like the the fact that campaigns cost too much for a level playing field and Citizen's United vs. the FCC ruling and PAC's make sure it never will be, lobbyists writing legitimation, funds donated to pet charities, the fact that often only lobbyists get access to lawmakers, lawmakers who do not even read the legislation they vote on but instead rely lobbyists tell them what it is about (thereby putting their own slant on it, if not outright misrepresenting it), the lobbying revolving door that let people who were staffers and even lawmaker themselves become lobbyists and back again (we currently have one trying to get the GOP nomination), the fact that non profit lobbies simply can't compete with big business so many issue of public interest are simply left to rot, that the financial industry lobbyists pushing for deregulation is a large part of the caused the financial crash?

Stuff like that?

Even lobbyists themselves have admitted this is influence pedaling that empowers the wealthy and disenfranchises the rest of us.


Yeah, some of those things.

I'm not a big fan of Citizen's United either. Although I don't think it was presented well in the media. Given the fact pattern, I'm not sure that the justices should have ruled differently - but that just creates the opportunity for Congress to write a better law. The question was whether a nonprofit who made a documentary that was critical of HIllary Clinton was violating campaign finance law if they made it available on demand via cable in the lead up to the election. The court ruled that it was an unconsitutional abridgment of the first amendment to prohibit anyone (including a company) from voicing their views (for or against) a candidate for office.

While I share your views that there is too much money in politics, I am cautious in looking for a solution that would limit public discourse. My voice as an individual is also often muffled and I'm limited to personal exchanges, facebook, twitter and now fark.

The MT supreme court recently ruled (in an opinion that ignored the supremacy clause) that due to a history in their state of undue corporate influence that they had a compelling interest in banning corporate speech. This goes back to the copper kings who had bought the legislature. As a result of the ruling, there may be a chance for the Supreme Court to rehear citizens united as some justices have hinted.

Stephen Colbert and his lawyer have brillantly satirized the way in which one can exploit the ruling. As much as one can try to place the blame on lobbyists, we do have three branches of government and unconsitutional laws do get overruled, new legislation is constantly passed and elected officials get voted out.

I firmly believe as I mentioned earlier that each capitol is full of competing interests and it is not nearly as clubby as some think.
 
2012-03-06 08:52:34 PM

jda007: I was not being condescending. I meant what I said. This is one of the huge problems with reading text on the internet. Elected officials are the ones making the decisions.

But... it's been a long day and I forget my 'arguing on the internet' guidelines.

And yeah, I am conservative. I think a lot of folks on our side of the aisle would agree there is too much money in politics. I think Citizens is a poor decision and the less money in the system the better.


I do retract and apoligize for the DIAF comment. That was wrong, way not cool and major bad karma. I'm sorry.
 
2012-03-06 09:01:40 PM

KiplingKat872: jda007:

You have to understand people are waking up to how much power they have lost to the system you participate in.

They are mad. Really mad.

And if the system continues to push them in the economic direction it has been, it's going to get very, very ugly.

Seriously dude, I would give myself another five years to make my money and get the hell out of that line of work because you guys do have a target painted on you for public rage.


And the anger should be directed towards reforming the system. We don't need Robbespierre 2.0, we just need voters that demand accountability and remain engaged between elections,

The reform that is needed:
Real time disclosure of donations for the public to see or a blind donation system where politicians can't know who gave them money (even if someone claims they gave, they could be lying)

public calendars of who politicans meet with in their offices and who their lunches/dinners are with.

disclosure of who their spouses and children work for and when they were hired.

Feel free to add to the list.
 
2012-03-06 09:08:11 PM

htotheova: KiplingKat872: htotheova: (because you have to have a clear view of the status quo and where the problems are to suggest changes)

You mean like the the fact that campaigns cost too much for a level playing field and Citizen's United vs. the FCC ruling and PAC's make sure it never will be, lobbyists writing legitimation, funds donated to pet charities, the fact that often only lobbyists get access to lawmakers, lawmakers who do not even read the legislation they vote on but instead rely lobbyists tell them what it is about (thereby putting their own slant on it, if not outright misrepresenting it), the lobbying revolving door that let people who were staffers and even lawmaker themselves become lobbyists and back again (we currently have one trying to get the GOP nomination), the fact that non profit lobbies simply can't compete with big business so many issue of public interest are simply left to rot, that the financial industry lobbyists pushing for deregulation is a large part of the caused the financial crash?

Stuff like that?

Even lobbyists themselves have admitted this is influence pedaling that empowers the wealthy and disenfranchises the rest of us.

Yeah, some of those things.

I'm not a big fan of Citizen's United either. Although I don't think it was presented well in the media. Given the fact pattern, I'm not sure that the justices should have ruled differently - but that just creates the opportunity for Congress to write a better law. The question was whether a nonprofit who made a documentary that was critical of HIllary Clinton was violating campaign finance law if they made it available on demand via cable in the lead up to the election. The court ruled that it was an unconsitutional abridgment of the first amendment to prohibit anyone (including a company) from voicing their views (for or against) a candidate for office.

While I share your views that there is too much money in politics, I am cautious in looking for a solution that would limit public discourse. My voice as an individual is also often muffled and I'm limited to personal exchanges, facebook, twitter and now fark.

The MT supreme court recently ruled (in an opinion that ignored the supremacy clause) that due to a history in their state of undue corporate influence that they had a compelling interest in banning corporate speech. This goes back to the copper kings who had bought the legislature. As a result of the ruling, there may be a chance for the Supreme Court to rehear citizens united as some justices have hinted.

Stephen Colbert and his lawyer have brillantly satirized the way in which one can exploit the ruling. As much as one can try to place the blame on lobbyists, we do have three branches of government and unconsitutional laws do get overruled, new legislation is constantly passed and elected officials get voted out.

I firmly believe as I mentioned earlier that each capitol is full of competing interests and it is not nearly as clubby as some think.


We know that there are competing interests, but none of them are ours. It's clubby to us, to over 90% of American citizens who have almost no say in what happens in our federal and state capitols. Saying "but there are competing lobbies in Washington" is like pointing out that the Lancasters and Yorks don't get along that well to a 14th century English peasant. Do you think he really gives a shiat? It doesn't matter who is bickering with whom when modt Americans have been locked out of the decisions of the government that creates the policies we have to live under.

We'd be happy to stop all lobbyists bickering over power by telling all of them to fark off and take our government back.
 
2012-03-06 09:14:07 PM

imontheinternet: Thunderpipes: Unions are the largest group of lobbyists and spend the most money.

But you knew that and are okay with it, because 95% of them support Democrats.

Dumbass hippies.

Financial institutions generally spend the most on lobbying, and they tend to give almost equally to both parties, but that's besides the point.

It's wrong when insurance companies do it, and it's wrong when unions do it. The system itself is set up to undermine the Republic in favor of the interests of the wealthy few. The fact that some lobbyists may do something decent occasionally does not change the fundamental problems with the system, and the startling lack of transparency.


Who spent the most money in the 2010 elections? A union, AFSCME , 87.5 million for Democrats only.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

President Barack Obama has criticized the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to more spending by corporations and unions. When asked about AFSCME's ramped up campaign efforts following the court's decision, the White House focused on largely anonymous campaign spending by what it termed "special interests."

So here we go, exceptions already being made :)
 
2012-03-06 09:15:00 PM

htotheova: KiplingKat872: jda007:

You have to understand people are waking up to how much power they have lost to the system you participate in.

They are mad. Really mad.

And if the system continues to push them in the economic direction it has been, it's going to get very, very ugly.

Seriously dude, I would give myself another five years to make my money and get the hell out of that line of work because you guys do have a target painted on you for public rage.

And the anger should be directed towards reforming the system. We don't need Robbespierre 2.0, we just need voters that demand accountability and remain engaged between elections,

The reform that is needed:
Real time disclosure of donations for the public to see or a blind donation system where politicians can't know who gave them money (even if someone claims they gave, they could be lying)

public calendars of who politicans meet with in their offices and who their lunches/dinners are with.

disclosure of who their spouses and children work for and when they were hired.

Feel free to add to the list.


Dude, we know most of this stuff. That's how we know how little power we have.
What difference does it make that we know exactly who is farking us and how much?

None. Knowing that does not stop a single dime from flowing into the pockets of the Democratic and Republucan parties and any new canidate they and their contributors deem worthy.

You are part of the system, and the system has insulated itself against reform. You guys are the ones with the power, and if *you* do not change the system, we do not have the chance to without resorting to violence.
 
2012-03-06 09:19:15 PM

Thunderpipes: imontheinternet: Thunderpipes: Unions are the largest group of lobbyists and spend the most money.

But you knew that and are okay with it, because 95% of them support Democrats.

Dumbass hippies.

Financial institutions generally spend the most on lobbying, and they tend to give almost equally to both parties, but that's besides the point.

It's wrong when insurance companies do it, and it's wrong when unions do it. The system itself is set up to undermine the Republic in favor of the interests of the wealthy few. The fact that some lobbyists may do something decent occasionally does not change the fundamental problems with the system, and the startling lack of transparency.

Who spent the most money in the 2010 elections? A union, AFSCME , 87.5 million for Democrats only.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

President Barack Obama has criticized the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to more spending by corporations and unions. When asked about AFSCME's ramped up campaign efforts following the court's decision, the White House focused on largely anonymous campaign spending by what it termed "special interests."

So here we go, exceptions already being made :)


Dude, the financial industry alone tops that in a couple hundred million spent in lobbying every year.

And that does not negate the basic point that influence peddeling is bad no matter who does it.
 
2012-03-06 09:34:00 PM

htotheova: KiplingKat872: htotheova: (because you have to have a clear view of the status quo and where the problems are to suggest changes)

You mean like the the fact that campaigns cost too much for a level playing field and Citizen's United vs. the FCC ruling and PAC's make sure it never will be, lobbyists writing legitimation, funds donated to pet charities, the fact that often only lobbyists get access to lawmakers, lawmakers who do not even read the legislation they vote on but instead rely lobbyists tell them what it is about (thereby putting their own slant on it, if not outright misrepresenting it), the lobbying revolving door that let people who were staffers and even lawmaker themselves become lobbyists and back again (we currently have one trying to get the GOP nomination), the fact that non profit lobbies simply can't compete with big business so many issue of public interest are simply left to rot, that the financial industry lobbyists pushing for deregulation is a large part of the caused the financial crash?

Stuff like that?

Even lobbyists themselves have admitted this is influence pedaling that empowers the wealthy and disenfranchises the rest of us.

Yeah, some of those things.

I'm not a big fan of Citizen's United either. Although I don't think it was presented well in the media. Given the fact pattern, I'm not sure that the justices should have ruled differently - but that just creates the opportunity for Congress to write a better law. The question was whether a nonprofit who made a documentary that was critical of HIllary Clinton was violating campaign finance law if they made it available on demand via cable in the lead up to the election. The court ruled that it was an unconsitutional abridgment of the first amendment to prohibit anyone (including a company) from voicing their views (for or against) a candidate for office.

While I share your views that there is too much money in politics, I am cautious in looking for a solution that would limit public discourse. My voice as an individual is also often muffled and I'm limited to personal exchanges, facebook, twitter and now fark.

The MT supreme court recently ruled (in an opinion that ignored the supremacy clause) that due to a history in their state of undue corporate influence that they had a compelling interest in banning corporate speech. This goes back to the copper kings who had bought the legislature. As a result of the ruling, there may be a chance for the Supreme Court to rehear citizens united as some justices have hinted.

Stephen Colbert and his lawyer have brillantly satirized the way in which one can exploit the ruling. As much as one can try to place the blame on lobbyists, we do have three branches of government and unconsitutional laws do get overruled, new legislation is constantly passed and elected officials get voted out.

I firmly believe as I mentioned earlier that each capitol is full of competing interests and it is not nearly as clubby as some think.


I do not think it would limut public discourse the limit campaign spending (including allotments of tv airtime), strictly limit *all* donations made by coporations and the wealthy to individuals and groups closely associated with elected officials, to revoke corporate "personhood" and disallow money as freedom of speech, and to end the revoling door.

Elected officials get voted out, but the new officials are just as bought and paid for. If you see a campaign ad on TV now, that person has already taken corporate donations. Its the only way they can afford it. And they will only get the support of the major party if they play the game. Its not one crop of senators, it is an entire entrenched system that perpetuates itself.
 
2012-03-06 09:42:57 PM

KiplingKat872: , to revoke corporate "personhood" and disallow money as freedom of speech, and to end the revoling door.


If we revoke corporate personhood, would that mean corporations lose all rights? If so, can we pass a law allowing the government to seize all assets of any corporation it wants?

I really don't think you "corporations aren't people" people have thought this stuff through at all. Corporations are made of people. I suppose you think it's fine to strip people of their rights when they assemble as a corporation?
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report