Secret meetings with lobbyists.

[ImnoMensa]

Politico: White House Mtg. With Lobbyists at Off-Site Locations to Avoid Detection | The Blaze

“During the campaign, then-Sen. Obama put forth the toughest ethics and lobbying reform policy in history,” Vietor said, “and now he’s acting on it to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”

Well after all isn't it ethical to have your staff meet them at a hotel down the street instead of the White House?

 

[Larry Gude]

Setting aside the rank and continuing hypocrisy of 'hope and change' and the failures of this administration to do much more than steer money to favored groups at the expense of everyone else, now is as good a time as any to address lobbyists.

It's a simple fact of life that people will, and should, pursue their own interests through advocating to the government be it to protect their interests from negative attention of government or to seek favor from government.

The problems all stem from the will of the people being subverted to those special interests, when 51% want, say, Obama to shun lobbyists and they get their way anyway.

Alan Keyes long ago advocate a simple, elegant policy of 'if it can't vote, it can't give'. So, GM can not give to a candidate or party because it can't vote. The UAW, same thing. GM and the UAW are free to run ads and appeal to their communities and try to stir up support for things they want but, to get rid of the direct appearance and in fact act of corruption, they shouldn't be able to 'own' politicians and parties.

Obviously, this reduces their direct influence and will harm their effectiveness but, it doesn't limit their right to speech. It just cleans it up.

 

[glhs837]

I agree, and this goes to the "Corporations/unions are only morally beholden to further their own ends, and must not consider any larger effects those actions might have on society and other groups" thought. If we give them a pass for behaving morally then they are not people, and as such should not have the rights of people, such as free speech.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree, and this goes to the "Corporations/unions are only morally beholden to further their own ends, and must not consider any larger effects those actions might have on society and other groups" thought. If we give them a pass for behaving morally then they are not people, and as such should not have the rights of people, such as free speech.

I think that is besides the point because I can make a sound 'positive community impact' argument in favor of unions and/or corporations.

I come at this solely from the 'clean government' aspect; if they can't give to parties and candidates, they can't own them and are dependent on appealing to we, the people and getting us to tell OUR representatives what to do.

 

[glhs837]

Oh, they can make a positive difference, and many do. But doing good does not allow one to engage in wrong. My point was that we treat the same legal entity in two different ways, and that's silly. Its either a person with a persons rights (and responsibilities), or its not.

And if it lacks the rights of a person, then, as you say, it cannot contribute. I think back to my time in CA, I suppose. Your point about them appealing to us, the people gets a bit crazy out there, the home of the ballot initiative. The folks writing them made them so convoluted it took a Talmudic scholar to parse out WTH the initiative was actually going to do. And the advertising for each side was like a shell game, twisting those already convoluted words into pretzels of logic and meaning.

I think it comes down to if they cant buy them outright, they will buy them another way. Letting the mistress stay free in the corporate apartment, instead of giving her $2K a month to rent her own.

 

[CrashTest]

I wonder if those lobbyists are gonna use psyops on him like our military leadership supposedly does.

 

[itsbob]

I wonder if those lobbyists are gonna use psyops on him like our military leadership supposedly does.

Psyops depends on the "victim" having a somewhat sound mind.

 

[Ken King]

Alan Keyes long ago advocate a simple, elegant policy of 'if it can't vote, it can't give'. So, GM can not give to a candidate or party because it can't vote. The UAW, same thing. GM and the UAW are free to run ads and appeal to their communities and try to stir up support for things they want but, to get rid of the direct appearance and in fact act of corruption, they shouldn't be able to 'own' politicians and parties.

Obviously, this reduces their direct influence and will harm their effectiveness but, it doesn't limit their right to speech. It just cleans it up.

I have a hurdle with this concept because at face value the political parties can't vote either, thus they shouldn't be able to give to a specific candidate, right? The political parties shouldn't own the politicians either because once elected they are there to serve the people, not just the party.

It's bad enough that the many states are required to provide the infrastructure (polling places, ballots, and machines) to accomplish the parties selection of its candidates, make the parties foot that bill instead of the people.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have a hurdle with this concept because at face value the political parties can't vote either, thus they shouldn't be able to give to a specific candidate, right? The political parties shouldn't own the politicians either because once elected they are there to serve the people, not just the party.

It's bad enough that the many states are required to provide the infrastructure (polling places, ballots, and machines) to accomplish the parties selection of its candidates, make the parties foot that bill instead of the people.

Exactly.

I have no problem with parties per se. And they can run the show, their primary system, etc, just not give to individuals.