Submitted by Bob Hertzog on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:18pm.
MFP Tags: Lobby Reform, Democrats, Campaign Finance Reform, Campaign DonationsTopics: Arts
MFP Tags: Lobby Reform, Democrats, Campaign Finance Reform, Campaign DonationsTopics: Arts
Lobby Reform and the Democrats
If you thought that by electing Democrats in 06 or even in 08 would bring any real lobbying reform, you’d better rethink. The newly elected Democratic congress has so far failed miserably to pass any meaningful restrictions on lobbies and the leading Democratic candidates for president all seem to be in the pocket of
The leading Democratic fund raiser, Hillary Clinton, seems all but owned by professional lobby fundraisers. Hillary said, and this really made me angry, “…you know, a lot of those lobbyists, weather you like it or not, represent real Americans.” Yeah real Americans like Raytheon, Merrill Lynch, Bristol-Myers, and General Motors. She had the gall to tell people that their money would not influence her decisions as president. If you believe that …. Well, I have this bridge across the
In spite of their public disavowals both Barak Obama and John Edwards have some ties to major lobby fundraisers. Although, they may not be taking money directly from lobbyists, as is
Now before anyone gets the wrong idea, do you think I want to go back to Republicans, who made an art form out of taking money from and knuckling under to special-interest lobbies? Not on your life. At least Democrats are willing to talk about lobbying reform.
If, like me, you see this as a problem, what can be done about it? Under our current system … not a thing. The major need of every politician who really wants to be elected (or re-elected) is money. It requires so much money to get elected to almost any office that practically all viable candidates find them selves beholden to those who can raise the kind of money they need.
· Limit all political donations to $200 or less.
· Eliminate all political donations from corporations or agencies. In other words, only an individual person can donate to a political candidate or to a
· Pass very strong legislation that forbids bundling.
· If necessary, some public funding of political campaigns.
· Require all mass media outlets (local and national) to provide some free space or air time for viable candidates for the relevant political offices.
Technorati Tags: - Bob Hertzog's blog
- Email this Blog entry
- 269 reads
Definitions needed
Some good thoughts.
What's the definition of mass media? And 'viable'? And 'relevant'? ;)
Good thoughts, though. I hope some of the more politically inclined readers out there jump into the discussion.
-kpaul
McCain-Fiengold-Hertzog? :)
I'm not sure the problem is so much the money they receive as candidates, as it is how much power they have to hand out favors after they are elected. I don't want the government limiting how much support I can give a candidate, and I certainly don't want them giving my money to a candidate with views that I cannot support.
I'm not opposed to requiring candidates to list their major contributors, but I think the best solution is to eliminate the politicians ability to hand out special favors.
Definitions...
Bob Hertzog
Righ Paul, you have raised some of the difficult questions. I have an opinion but the answer to those question must come out of the debate, once people commit to the fundamental principle. It would be a difficult discussion and, no doubt, hotly debated. People debating in good faith can reach an agreement. The really big problem is getting a commitment on the fundamental idea.
See Rex's comment below. He makes some good points against the whole basic idea.
McCain-Fiengold???
Bob Hertzog
Right Rex, I do know about McCain-Fiengold. It was a good start, but in my view, it does not go far enough. You do make some reasonable points against what I have proposed. But, if you don't like government as we have it today, what's your solution? I don't think what I have suggested is a perfect solution, but I think it is the only workable solution to a problem that I believe is eating the heart out of "government by the people."
You are correct, of course, it is the power legislators have to hand out favores. Those favors are in the form of legislation they pass. We cannot stop them from passing legislation (they are legislators), so we must change the way legislators receive their support.
People spend millions to get into office, because it gives them power to legislate. When they get into office, they are beholden to the people who can get the money they need. If we wnat to maintain a government of the people, we need to break that relationship. I believe it is essential.
Special Favors
Wouldn't it be difficult to stop something like special favors?
We've thrown out some great ideas these last few weeks - little pieces of the puzzle. We just need someone to put them all together and implement some of them. Heh.
-kpaul
Solution: Limited Government...
Well Bob, I'm sure once again we will have different solutions to the same problem. I agree 100% that money and power is the driving force behind most of the legislation that is passed. I fear term limits would only add a sense of urgency to the legislators' desire to get their specific agenda in place.
If the federal government was constitutionally limited in it's duties, and if those duties were limited too protecting its citizens from force and fraud, it would severely limit the amount of mischief they could create, regardless of who gave them money.
When we allow the government the ability to forcibly re-distribute our wealth, and make our moral decisions, we need to remember that this ability will pass on to the next batch of politicians, who may not have the same opinion about who deserves our tax money, or what is and isn't moral.
I know from our previous discussions that you see a difference between the government taking something out of my pocket and giving it to a poor man, or taking something out of my pocket and giving it to a rich man. I don't see a difference, and its apparent that our current politicians don't either, and as long as they have the power, we can be sure they will continue to pass laws that benefit their favorite groups, regardless of whether they are in office for 2 years or 20 years.
In my opinion, limiting the government's power to tax, and limiting the government's scope of authority might not make for more honest politicians, but it would certainly limit the harm they do, more than just limiting the time they have to do it.
No matter what solution is achieved, I think we also need to realize that we can't put our government on auto-pilot and only check-in every 2 or 4 years. Somebody once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I think that includes being vigilant of our own government.
Post new comment