[Bill Baker]

Originally Posted by Salmonella

AIPAC has a strong influence on our government. I am not making an anti-Israel statement, that is just fact.

I say just get rid of lobbyists completely. There are some lobbyists out there working for good causes, but the vast majority are working for special corporate interests that have no business trying to influence the people we elected. Let the people speak for themselves.

note: u have now become ezras nazi troll by zionist thugs account!!

never again shall u mention aipac, or u will be shunned!!

[DaRuckus337]

Lobbyists are part of a free assembly republic. They represent large industries and interest groups in society, as a form of direct link with the politicians in Washington who are all too often hundreds of miles away and fairly out-of-touch with many of their constituents. The power of the lobbies are generally proportional to the number of people who they speak for, with larger industries and groups having more money and wielding more influence through their lobby. For example, the Food industry lobby represents the food-producing corporations of the country, and thus, all the workers who work for them. The more the lobby can push their agenda, the more these companies benefit and the more stable and prosperous the jobs in the industry become. What is so wrong with this kind of freely assembled form of informal political influence? They speak for people to the Congress, a necessary practice given the obvious limitations a single politician has when it comes to accurately representing the interests of tens of thousands of people spread over hundreds of square miles.

Now, I'm all for more regulation and more transparency when it comes to how lobbyists and congressmen interact. There simply needs to be a way to keep tabs on the actions of such groups to make sure the types of influence they wield over politicians are legal and in the interest of fair play. But, that said, their right to exist and the important role they can serve when it comes to reminding/informing various members of Congress about the number of constituents in their district/state who feel strongly about an issue should not be questioned.

[Bill Baker]

Originally Posted by DaRuckus337

Lobbyists are part of a free assembly republic. They represent large industries and interest groups in society, as a form of direct link with the politicians in Washington who are all too often hundreds of miles away and fairly out-of-touch with many of their constituents. The power of the lobbies are generally proportional to the number of people who they speak for, with larger industries and groups having more money and wielding more influence through their lobby. For example, the Food industry lobby represents the food-producing corporations of the country, and thus, all the workers who work for them. The more the lobby can push their agenda, the more these companies benefit and the more stable and prosperous the jobs in the industry become. What is so wrong with this kind of freely assembled form of informal political influence? They speak for people to the Congress, a necessary practice given the obvious limitations a single politician has when it comes to accurately representing the interests of tens of thousands of people spread over hundreds of square miles.

Now, I'm all for more regulation and more transparency when it comes to how lobbyists and congressmen interact. There simply needs to be a way to keep tabs on the actions of such groups to make sure the types of influence they wield over politicians are legal and in the interest of fair play. But, that said, their right to exist and the important role they can serve when it comes to reminding/informing various members of Congress about the number of constituents in their district/state who feel strongly about an issue should not be questioned.

good overall post.

what happens when a small minority's lobby group becomes one of the most influential?

wat happens whn this lobby group pushes for war in Iraq which causes many iraqi civilian deaths and the deaths of US citizens (the soldiers are also US citizens)??

[vogues157]

Originally Posted by DaRuckus337

Lobbyists are part of a free assembly republic. They represent large industries and interest groups in society, as a form of direct link with the politicians in Washington who are all too often hundreds of miles away and fairly out-of-touch with many of their constituents. The power of the lobbies are generally proportional to the number of people who they speak for, with larger industries and groups having more money and wielding more influence through their lobby. For example, the Food industry lobby represents the food-producing corporations of the country, and thus, all the workers who work for them. The more the lobby can push their agenda, the more these companies benefit and the more stable and prosperous the jobs in the industry become. What is so wrong with this kind of freely assembled form of informal political influence? They speak for people to the Congress, a necessary practice given the obvious limitations a single politician has when it comes to accurately representing the interests of tens of thousands of people spread over hundreds of square miles.

Now, I'm all for more regulation and more transparency when it comes to how lobbyists and congressmen interact. There simply needs to be a way to keep tabs on the actions of such groups to make sure the types of influence they wield over politicians are legal and in the interest of fair play. But, that said, their right to exist and the important role they can serve when it comes to reminding/informing various members of Congress about the number of constituents in their district/state who feel strongly about an issue should not be questioned.

I agree with most everything you said, except the limitations of a single politician part. Certain politicians can have enormous effects on what bills get passed and what ones fail. In my opinion, lobbyists don't speak for tens of thousands of people spread over hundreds of square miles, they speak for specific corporate interests. I bolded the part of your response that I agree with the most. There should definitely be some sort of oversight into the policies are directly influenced by congress.

[DaRuckus337]

^ by limitations, I mean the limitations they face in properly representing tens of thousands of diverse people. It's a matter of how difficult it is to represent a large section of a state from hundreds of miles away in Washington. They are obviously and understandably out of touch with many groups they are hired to represent, and the lobbies are one of the ways the people can continue to make their voices heard en mass while the politician is away in Washington supposedly working for them.

[TeTe lol Chin]

If it wasn't for those lobbyists I probably wouldn't own four guns today

[GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI]

Originally Posted by TeTe lol Chin

If it wasn't for those lobbyists I probably wouldn't own four guns today

well if you actually live in the city of chicago, handguns are banned

[TeTe lol Chin]

Originally Posted by GOD_OF_MUAYTHAI

well if you actually live in the city of chicago, handguns are banned

I'm aware. I actually live in the burbs. It wouldn't cause me to get rid of the things. I own two assault rifles and I never got rid of them when the county ban went into effect. I paid good money for those things at a show years ago, I sure hell am not giving them up.

[Ezra Pound]

Originally Posted by RuSSiaNThuG

lol @ your regurgitation of the king david hotel from almost a century ago

For the record Dude; this is what we think when we hear about World War 2 over and over and over and over. Meanwhile, worse atrocities are being carried out by the folks who won't shut up about it. It pays to have good PR.

[Ezra Pound]

Regulations can be bribed into ineffectiveness and transparency will never be verifiable I fear.